Labour and the Election (Geoff Bickerton)
Canadian Dimension Magazine, March/April 2006 Issue
This most recent election will go down in history as one time the Canadian labour movement set a new record in ideological confusion. Buzz Hargrove hugged Paul Martin. A PSAC regional leader speculated on the benefits of electing Tories.
Then, to top it all off, after the election the CLC issued a statement congratulating Harper and stating that all four parties, including the Conservatives, had “addressed the concerns of working Canadians and working families,” especially on issues like women’s equality, anti-scab legislation, pensions, health care, job creation, education and wages. (Go to their website and see for yourself!)
The election has left the labour movement with two very major problems. The first is the Conservative government. The second is the fact that the divisions in the labour movement have worsened and the credibility of the CAW leadership has hit a new low among non-CAW labour activists.
The problem is not just Hargrove’s endorsement of strategic voting or his very public embrace of Paul Martin. Over the years Hargrove has taken many controversial positions. In 1993 he sided with the public-sector unions in Ontario in their efforts to stop the NDP provincial government from removing collective bargaining rights and imposing the notorious “social contract” on public-sector workers. In 1995 he led the CAW into the coalition of unions that organized several regional general strikes as part of the “Days of Action” against the provincial government of Mike Harris. Many private-sector union leaders disagreed with this strategy, arguing instead that labour should wait and put its energies into electing another NDP provincial government. In 2000 the CAW signed up 30,000 members of the SEIU in Ontario and was found guilty of raiding. At that time Hargrove publicly criticized the CLC for not being sufficiently creative or militant. The following year he publicly supported the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees in their raid against CUPE.
When he is leading his members against governments or employers, Hargrove is a formidable leader and a valuable ally. But at some time or another he has seriously pissed off virtually everyone in the labour movement.
There is plenty of anger going around these days. Many activists are angered by Hargrove’s actions. Others are confused as to why the CLC adopted a “neutral” position in the election and why CLC president Ken Georgetti made a point of telling the media that he found Paul Martin “engaging” and that they talked regularly, while he only runs into Jack Layton in airports. Likewise, many people on the Left are furious at the lacklustre, middle-of-the-road campaign run by the national NDP leadership.
There will be another election within the next few years. There is time to bring the unions’ community allies and the NDP together to map out a strategy that will really put the issues of working people on the electoral agenda. The CLC needs to take action to begin this process now.
Comment by Jeff Burch, writing from Canada on March 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pm:
My name is Jeff Burch and I was the NDP candidate for St.Catharines in the recent federal election.
While I agree with many of the points in this article (especially your summary of Buzz Hargrove’s involvement) I do not agree with your contention that the NDP and Jack Layton ran a “lack-lustre and middle of the road campaign”. As a candidate I was quite proud of the central campaign and felt they did extraordinarily well with the resources they had and the idiotic opposition they ran into from their own supposed allies.
The boot adds were clever and had maximum impact for minimum cost. The campaign in general was positive and did not stoop to the level of the other two. The message was intelligent and spoke of priorities and hard choices (ie. improve health care and keep it public vs. tax breaks). Jack was well received by Canadians in terms of leadership. And most important for me, when faced with the traitorous actions of people like Hargrove, Layton came out swinging, turning the tables on Hargrove and the Liberals by encouraging Liberals to vote NDP.
I feel that people who complain that the party was not left wing enough in it’s message or that Layton was middle-of-the-road are just not living in the real world or must lack campaign experience. Policy debates are for betweeen elections, elections are about a window of time. I was extremely proud of the way the party and it’s candidates and workers accross the country took Hargrove’s actions to heart and turned our campaign around. The party is clearly on the up-swing and it’s supporters should be optimistic.
In Solidarity,
Jeff Burch
St. Catharines
Comment by Kim Clout, writing from Canada on March 10th, 2006 at 6:53 pm:
“Idiotic opposition”, “Traitorous actions”, “Turning the tables”, “Elections are about a window of time”, “Maximum impact” and “Well received by Canadians”.
These may very well also be quotes from an opening speech at a Republican convention. Too many people in the NDP and labour movement know these are not what elections or democracy are based on. In my view Geoff’s comments about a “lack lustre and middle of the road campaign” are legitimate. The proof lies in your response and where the party is headed. Perhaps more importantly, at what cost?
“Idiotic opposition” - Whether people like it or not, strategic voting was debated for over 3 hrs at CAW council and endorsed by 85% of delegates. It was a democratic vote by elected representatives from every sector of the union. I can respect your right to think of the CAW council as idiotic by endorsing this strategy, I just don’t agree. It really doesn’t seem like the NDP took into account at all the impact this would have CAW/NDP activists. I’m sure they’re smart enough to figure it out, so we have to assume they don’t care.
“Traitorous actions” - Even if you oppose strategic voting, I don’t think anybody is really questioning whether or not Buzz thought this would help workers and their families. He’s been a lifelong unionist and is entrenched in CAW history. Did he all of the sudden decide to abandon the fight for workers rights entirely? I think not. Even if he’s considered by most to be wrong, he still believes in what he’s doing.
“Turning the tables” - Two wrongs don’t make a right. Even worse, how do you justify an expulsion for the same strategy you try unsuccessfully to impliment yourself?
“Elections are about a window of time”. - Policy debates themselves may very well be for another time, but the election platform is supposed to be based on those democratically voted on positions. The platform sure did read alot different then an NDP resolutions manual!
“Maximum impact” - On who? People that the party could impression to vote for the NDP, or people the NDP could impression to join them and really feel that they are looking out for their interests. Obviously the emphasis was on chasing votes rather than establishing principles. Where was the discussion on important issues like trade that have also been debated and voted on at NDP council/convention.
“Well received by Canadians”. - Obviously not well enough to hold the balance of power, never mind form government. This in the face of a corrupt government that never really was able to get a campaign off the ground.
Those of us that think the campaign was ‘lack lustre and middle of the road’ or “not left enough” ,do live in the real world. Unfortunately we’re reminded of it every week when we open our pay cheques, in spite of massive corporate profits.
The NDP was wrong to expel the President of the CAW. They should be trying to open doors, not drawing lines!
Unfortunately for the NDP, this has forced alot of activists to take a close look at where the party is headed, and they don’t like what they see.
Comment by Polunatic, writing from United States on March 12th, 2006 at 2:41 pm:
“But at some time or another he has seriously pissed off virtually everyone in the labour movement.”
Not me. Is it possible he’s made some mistakes? Sure. But does that mean abandoning him to the blindly partisan wolves in social democratic clothing who prefer to see him as roadkill? No.
Does one jump ship and support those who defended the social contract now that they may have POLITICAL disagreements with Buzz (which are never discussed politically - only with the emotional blinders of partisanship)? Do you drop the friends who stood by you in favour of those who squelched the Days of Action for more respectable forms of political action?
If Jack Layton and the NDP piss me off, it doesn’t mean that I’m going to join Stephen Harper. It does not add up politically.
Comment by Jeff Burch, writing from Canada on March 13th, 2006 at 12:26 pm:
In respose to Brother Clout:
It appears that anyone who does not chime in with those who consider themselves the far left are “Republicans”. What a pleasure it must be to see the whole world in black and white.
Allow me to clarify:
“Idiotic Opposition” - Supporting an anti-worker Liberal party in the middle of an election against an even more anti-worker Conservative party while arguing that this will be good for workers. Mr. Clout knows very well that Paul Martin showing up to get his jacket for the cameras was a complete shock to the CAW delegates in attendence and many were outraged. The decision was made long before they got there and there was nothing democratic about it.
“Traitorous Actions” - Let’s be serious, he promoted the Liberals on national television, then went out and campaigned for them, including showing up at Liberal campaign events and endorsing Liberals against candidates of his own party. The hug was bad enough, but even Judas didn’t go out and campaign afterward.
“Elections are a window of time” - 4 to 8 weeks to be exact during which there are day to day changes and a daily struggle to get media attention and communicate as much of your policy as possible. Expounding on the finer points of a manifesto is not an option. It’s called reality. Unless getting votes is not really an option for a “true socialist”.
It is embarrassing as a labour activist for me to see members of a union stab the NDP in the back in the middle of an election, then use the result of the election as justification for what they have done. I would suggest CAW activists should think about dragging their own union back from the right before criticizing loyal and hard working New Democrats for
not being left wing enough.
Comment by Abe Rosner, writing from Canada on April 13th, 2006 at 9:54 am:
I abandoned the NDP around the same time Gad Horowitz did (see his “paragraph” in this month’s CD), and likely for similar reasons. Their rejection of Quebec’s right to self-determination was particularly galling 30 years ago, and Layton’s about-face on the Clarity Act during the election brought all that back (yeah, I know, he fought the good fight and lost to the dinosaurs in caucus, whatever). Had I not torn up my membership then, reading Mr. Burch’s divisive comments would have prodded me in that direction all over again.
Speaking of Gad (if he reads this), I’ve been meaning to say this for about 45 years: I enjoyed hearing you at Junior Congregation at the Rosh Pinah, ditto at Camp Massad, and now your timely broadside at Layton, bravo! Keep it up.
May we all find our path back to unity,
Abe Rosner
CAW National Representative